Karnataka High Court
B Narasimha Murthy vs Mayigaiah on 17 September, 2010
Author: N.K.Patil
Bench: N.K.Patil
no IN THE HIGH COURT or KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE {)A'I'PL1) 'I'I~-1'18 'rr«~:'1a: 173" my 0;? SI:)PTEM_BI£R, V _ BEFORE _ A'_}.' THE HOINFBLE MR. JUs'1f;(:E WRYI' PE3'1"1"1"1ON No. 15-=:1S3&:.i vO}" -:..'?<,«Ox I <5 7 Betweanz & " 'V . VV 2 " 3 Sri. B. Narasimha Murthy, Aged about 41 years, S/0. Late Bettaiah, . " ~ Resident of Ba1eg;at.1a Vi'11ag--.§e=: } Melkole Hobli, " _ f :
Pandavapura Tzduk, V V' & M-andya ~ 4* ' V . . Petitioner [By Sri. HEC. ShiV"21r'arnLifiitdi/@Cz1te}.:
And:
'1. Sn'. Miayigaiaiil. V' Major, .V ' V If7oi"e§s1. Gua-rd, V' ' V_~'f§'3.eI};Om_. ..... & "I)21rifia&'2i§;_L_1rz1 'T':;--1IL1k, V' " e1;1_d'ya" I_)i"st.r1'cL . The REifig€A.,3§?OY€Sf. Offictm', V-.Pe1.11Cfzx%'g1pL1:"a Ta-1I1.11<. I553 1'1t12;vapL1 ra, Mei:r2§_§ya I)i.st.ri(:t.
Tfgie Asssistant F O1'CSi. C5f£iCe1*_.
N21gz1.r11z11aga1a1, Mar1d.ya I3i_s3t.1*:'(1'r..
4. The Ii)e1:>:.2'ty COI11I1'1iSSiOI'1QE'.
3.\/Eenldyei I)isE.riet.
Maudya.
.. Res_;3'0zideI31s (By Smt. EV£a11}ula. IR. Ka.mad01].i. HCGX5') " '- *°3HI<>§=$>§=*1i=>'é This Writ I~'et.ii,io11 is filed Ubnder"4jA:'tiQ1e:é, 22E$'uéivzga of the Cons1,itui',ion oi' hlcha, praiyi11;.§ 1.0 quash, ihe__'O_rti'e1* dated 03.02.2010 passed iI)_:£\4/iis(1.Ap_pe211 No..*f:19V/20053 {oydg Ne. MisC.Ap'peal N0. 7/2O(}'?'_)"'p21sseci Vb}/"_U1€_ 1€fi{'1'i'€d Civil' Ju<:1ge(Se11ior Division} and JMF'.C;' 3?21ndziV'.2_-1;5111'a, p:mduCed at Ahnexure-F. - * This petition cor*ni{1g{ on Eb: Pf'ei'in'i1r1ary Hearing in 'B' Group. this day' the Cour-T1, x:1:{Li'e *Lhc..-«.fQ31Qfi.vir.;g:
sought for quashing the passed by the Civii JL1dgezA'(S_:1";DVn} "Pandavapura, in Misc. Appea} No.39,/A2O(u)9 »,!VO1ti'1NeV.'Mis(:.Appeal No.7/2007}. 01iiy""grievar'1(:e of the petitioner is that, the _ f.:1,1_:her"'v«{)f' -iji1e "pt-:ti1.i0ner is the owner of land bearing New Sy.N0.86, mea5suI'1'r1g 02 acres 20 g111'1i'.éxSQ3~ which was gg1'a11'1£.eci to the pef;i1.1'oI1er's fmihei'
1)} under Darkasth on 10"' April 1960 in the :same Sy.No.4, New Sy.No.8'7, rr1.easuring.; 04 acres on 10"] June 1960.
Again, 02 acres was g1~.:mt.ed to the father Veofeypthe petitioraer in Sy.No.4, New Sy.No.87 on 1964. thereby rotaiiy 08 acres of at V. Kodagaii Viiieige, Pandavapura:=.fl'aij;,iE§,f? Since then, they have beeri=2'__r1 pea(_:ef11I potssyeseyiori etiitiyui» enjoyment of the property lsiiceteeded the said property, after (i_ea:j_Lfi":fi father. When petitioner sought for.~pertj';issio»n to eiitand remove the treeswstanding o§I.1"--his.yp-rope1*ty"by giving representation on 2é¥"_1 Deeerribner 200-1," _.When no steps was taken to consicier°*«th'ey1<eqt.1e;st:'iV of the petitioner, he was Ctirii:;t.r_2i;i1:ed t.oV"iifae-----:1'suit in O.S.No.166/ 1996 on the file (Jr.Dvn.) Peiiidavapura, against the reSpo'ri_de'i-ii:.si" for _pe1'mar1er1t. and also for temporary ir1ju1':eti:.:)r1 by filing an appiicaiiiori.
3. When. the said E1pp1iC€1'U()11 had come up for c<)nside1'at.ioz1 before Trial Coiirf. the Trial Court after heariiig. graritcd the mmporazy i1'1j1lE1Ci.i()'E1.. resiéjziixiing the rézspondents from int@1'feri13g with {;I*;i'C*«'..pe§§{§4::_fL11 possession and enjoyment of the property, The I'€SpOI1d€1"}tS being a1ggrié:V€:c1...b}}>' passed by the Trial Couift, :-iii MisC.Appea1 No.7/ 2007 / ':(>ni:.he file of the iearned P1"inciVp--a Ii" _C:'_VVi1;_«.judgé§V{S€niOI' DiViSi01'l} Srirangapatna.._ The'.Vs9,id:'Vapp§,+»a1' $3réiéi.failowed and the ord<3rvi1;)2iss:cAV§Ai?ib3.}:': ie.Va'r-iieid Judge was set aside by its ofder 2010. Though it is an admitt',éd. f21(:t "théi€'VA; ..t':I'i--es:m}J)eti€i.i0ner's father issued the 0cc1:.paI1cy"rjghts 1<é't;i.é'r and it is 21 hiduvali land. the i'es3pon.dents 'whQ____«}.-mow about the possession and the: property in question have no right to I f)F€§'€I14i;"«v1':1i3:'p€§fi'[.iOI1€I' from either cultivatixag or cutting ai1__d x'eiir1OVi.i1g the {trees standing on the land, c0'r1ti'1'ary to i:h<->ii";.<)w:3 Cnm.mu1ai(:ation dated 20""/30": Jmrie 1994 fix NI,» 'H_M___W,W.» 9"
and the 1\/ia.ha7,ai' dated 41-" March 2004. ii, is the case of the peiitioner that in spite of tliai, the Lower Appellate Court has; set. aside the ()i'd€1". 'Fherefc>re, the pet.i_i'ioner has appmached this Court by filing thisj_1§ei.~iiiefi. :1-'i_;)";«* _ redressal of his grievances.
4. I have heard ].ear1':ed c0'1in._seE apgieaiing {car t.heu> petitioner and iihe 1ea1'fie:1: Pleader appearing tbr resp0rv1cfl_e};2'_£s;A._ ;_' 0' ;':é?i.;aref'Li1"--.§)e'riisa~};"fof the order impugned peissevdbgf Jiidge (Junior D11) 8: JMFC, at Pandavapulfaffdated»":13"! December 2006 passed on 2006 and the _IL1d§.§1'l1€f3.f', dated 3"! passed by the Civil Judge {Senior D11.) 8:
.J1YiIi"CJgiivjij'liP.andaVap1;1ra, in Misc. Appeal No.39/2009 (O1d"I\E't)':,'7/2007), What. emerges is that in spite of giving w$_i;fif€.(:ieii.t opp0rt.un.ity to the pet.i"t:i0Iiei*, he has faiied to u jpr(>d11ce any a1it11eni:icai;ed d0(:i.1m.ez1t to estabiish that (3 he is the owner of the s':.ii.t; schedule land as described in the piaini, and even from the map allegedly prepared by the Taluk Surveyor, it appears that 02 acres 1.0._g1.1r:i21s alleged to have been graniied to the faiihe/irf petitierier is shown to have sit»uz1.iied .'aWéiydfv37r<§Ir1'_' V' Pete«I\/ieiukote Road. but in p1:'aA11*1i'.-.'._'_'ipiiairxtiff that towards North of t:ii.{éT"~sL1it dpr.§3}3€~:uriVti3if, '°Pete--Vi' Meiukote is situated... '1' Iebkixiigifrom any angle, the document.s"pr5dis_eedv 'petitiorier are not sufficient to got prima facie €Vi(1(3E"i.C'Ef' -i:_c§"j;sh<fi'ifs;=*"-hi's9'possessién over the property as describ'ed¢'_iri ::'"§"h.eref0_re. the Trial Court has eemmii:f.ed., av gr:a_ve~.ve1'rpr in Corning to the COI1Ch1SI01'1 tliéiz the p('3tl'ti(')"1'l€~}'-~-}"iVE1S got prirrla faeie evidence to show V =his'p"e~sse,ssiOn over the suit schedule property. When. tijéii petiijiener has failed to preduee prima faeie evidence regardii:1g his alleged possession over the pmperty Vdeseribed in the piaint, the balariee of eeriveziierice in ,faVOE,1T of the plaintiff and causing irreparable loss to him does not arise. It is the specific case."Of the resp0nde'i'1t,s that the a.lIeged letter of the Officer is not the aut.he1'1tic:at.ed c()mm1,1nie_ati.or1arici it sig11if1'ea11t: to note that what petitioner is that his i'21t11.r3_1* is "21Ileged [tie-i..lia\}'e l}be'en.', granted different: extlents 1964, totally an extent of entitied for grant of that the relevant;
provisions of 'Rules. T he Lower Appellate material avaiiabie on reeord,'_'h'aj3.,vrjgihztlyujallpweci the Misc. Appeal filed by the respohi,1ents.._ it 'pet'1'tioner has failed to make out a ('§6kSf-3_ for i-n_te1'Vfe1'e':iee in the well eorisiderecl order learned Civil Judge [Senior Division} "l?'a1éi_d£ive.p':;_1*a[_'~'"i~lence. ir1t:eri'erenee. by this Court: is unea,l1e<:_,1' 'ibf.
A. 6." lF+'t,1rt.her, it is pertinent to note that, on nearly _ l.7"()eicasi(ms, the matter has been acljourried from time V' 'to time at the request: of the learned eouilsel for the mv¢»»rwmW,,wu.fl¢mfl,.
pet.iiioner and on one ocrtasioiii, ie. an 3" September 2010, the matter has beer: adjourned at the request. of the learned G0ve1'nmem Advcxéate. Tliis proves lqejgoxiel ..L 211} reasonable doubts that the petitioner LQ protract. the litigation, has p1'esjer1i:e(i _--l,his':~..pe~t.itiQi';.__ll Therefore, having regard to all ihese :;1s1;)-ectts, 1. £I;rr1"'{V{';*e._t_i'ro:VeA View that this is not a case fOfi~_3j.[CYf€'F€1'1(T€. 'A A
7. Further, it can 'befizeen t'h_a'L'-fiielllipléiiritiff petitioner has not '~~}j1'0c_':ireetl~:l:'. azitheriticated Appellate Court to however, he has produced some'dQeL1ii1C.iit.sVhvbelferels this Court. in my view, the any impecliment {:0 produce the and any other docurneiritis in support of t:.11e Trial Court. Tlixerefore, liberty is :t() the petiiiiorier to produce any clecuments in létijpplert. of his Case before the Trial Court by filing ' Eieeessary zlpplication 1:0 subst:a1'iti2.1t:e the main relief is?
y'-' .5;
'£29?' 9 s<)L1ghi. in the original sixit. If such applicaiioii is filed, the Trial Court. 5332111 COI{"1Sid€31' the same a;1;'i"-.';:'>*a_£¥§'5~§ appropriate O1'dC1"S in aCCOI'CL':11'1C€ with * affording rezisoiiabie 0pp0riLmit;y""' 0-17' h--§2a1rVii1'gVI. '4 iii parties comrerned, and decide 1:4hé'«Vn1'a,_i:{e.r c3:1_i1i<:r,its_,:"'o.riv top priorfliy basis, haviilg 1"<1g;:.;i"-17(»i to" sithe parties are 1_itigati11g 1'0? in ore: a "decade. ' '
8. For3i.fi£3._fr3reg_0i'r;g..~i"ea.sE)f1_s,_t!:i€ writ petition is cfismissed as c§iéV<3ici"~--0.f 'I"1'}ifl€'v§v--Fi..i.:73'.AA.-O17ACi('iI'€(31 accordingly.